Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[cykadelic2]

Another non-sequiter

The P2 may or may not want anti-trust.

If they do get it, it won’t be for full pooling in the sense you think. It will be so when they go to a combined 48, they can collectively bargain together

That’s exclusionary but so is cutting things off at the P4 level

They won’t seek antitrust if they feel that will forced them to pool with all of P4, let alone all of FBS

And they have the political muscle to do so.

They may well do that but they would be kicking the can down the road.

If their plan is to go to 48 and financially and competitively relegate/destroy 88 existing FBS ADs and eliminate hundreds of non-rev schollies/sports, the Feds will intervene regardless and successful in doing so.

Rational SEC/B10 Presidents/ADs understand that pooling with 136 will double/triple their revenues, obviously be the politically correct thing to do and get their Anti-Trust Exemption in the process.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

They may well do that but they would be kicking the can down the road.

If their plan is to go to 48 and financially and competitively relegate/destroy 88 existing FBS ADs and eliminate hundreds of non-rev schollies/sports, the Feds will intervene regardless and successful in doing so.

Rational SEC/B10 Presidents/ADs understand that pooling with 136 will double/triple their revenues, obviously be the politically correct thing to do and get their Anti-Trust Exemption in the process.

But out of the other side of your mouth you expect the G6 to self relegate.

So, if the Top 48 or whatever separate, they're causing harm so they should do the right thing and just fall on their own swords?

 

[cykadelic2]

But out of the other side of your mouth you expect the G6 to self relegate.

So, if the Top 48 or whatever separate, they're causing harm so they should do the right thing and just fall on their own swords?

Quit sticking your head in the sand about G6 "relegation". The G6 would be part of the pooling and double/triple their revenues. They make even more if they add an 8-team G6 Playoff to the pooled media rights packages and provide clear access to a national championship for G6 FB teams which obviously doesn't now exist.

So yeah, the G6 can make a choice:

1) Be part of the 136 FBS pool and still get 1 at-large bid to a 16-team FBS playoff that they have absolutely no chance of ever winning and deprive the other five G6 conference champs entrance into the FBS playoff.

OR

2) Be part of the 136 FBS pool and make even more money for all G6 schools by monetizing a separate 8-team G6 Playoff within the pooled media rights packages and provide all 6 conference champs plus 2 at-large teams a shot a national title.

#2 is the obvious choice and if some existing G6 schools don't like it, they can go indy, get their own TV deal (good luck with that) and beat their heads on the door trying to get an at-large bid in the 16-team P7 CFP.

And claiming that the "Top 48" would be "falling on their swords" is drama queen BS when by agreeing to full FBS 136 pooling and rational realignment, they will double/triple their existing revenue streams

 

[isucy86]

This thread is the message board version of the movie Groundhog Day. Except Bill Murray was funny and Andie MacDowell was hot.

 

[CascadeClone]

Also helps that we were following a game with 16M viewers but this is still an awesome number and great for the B12 (and us)

If you break it into timeslots for saturday, it shows some interesting things:
Agree the OSU-UT game on Fox probably helped bring people to ISU. And maybe some people that are anti-P2? Certainly there is no reason that Nevada-PSU or Marshall-GA are worse games than SD-ISU. Although the GA game was on ESPN, lesser than CBS.
My other takeaway is how those 3 REALLY big games dominated the ratings. Those are enormous ratings, like CCG or CFP levels. Usually like 5M would be big for a game regular season, and the next two would be ~3M each. ISU being a (distant) 4th though is still a positive.

Still its overall good for ISU. Hopefully we draw well for El Assico. ABC has Texas vs SJSt and ESPN has Duke-Illinois in that timeslot. Woof. Kentucky vs Ole Miss is probably the highlight for hte 2:30 window. Barf.

*note I added 5% to the panel to get the big data - that's about the difference on the ones that had a difference. +/- 1% I don't think matters for this analysis.

 

[FinalFourCy]

So yeah, the G6 can make a choice:

1) still get 1 at-large bid to a 16-team FBS playoff that they have absolutely no chance of ever winning and deprive the other five G6 conference champs entrance into the FBS playoff.

OR

2) make even more money for all G6 schools by monetizing a separate 8-team G6 Playoff within the pooled media rights packages and provide all 6 conference champs plus 2 at-large teams a shot a national title.

That’s the same argument the P2 can make if they pool rights. Are you suggesting we start our own playoff?

So yeah, the M2 and G6 can make a choice:

1) still get 1 at-large bid to a 16-team FBS playoff that they have absolutely no chance of ever winning

OR

2) make even more money for all M6 and G6 schools by monetizing a separate 12-team M/G Playoff

Most of the increase from pooling rights comes from the P2 being one entity, if the P2 expand to 48.

The answer is Wall Street changing the model. Right now only networks can pool, as they control the revenue mechanism. We need an investor to take a risk and be the middleman, pooling rights, then bringing them to market in which the starving-for-rights networks compete for only one seller

 

[StPaulCyclone]

We were head to head with Penn State on CBS.

And Alabama and FSU too, correct?

 

[FinalFourCy]

Just more evidence that time slot and network has more to impact viewership than which teams are playing.

Opening with a bomb and a lot of offense also helps retain viewers from a lead-in of one of the biggest games of the year.

 

[clone52]

And Alabama and FSU too, correct?

Yeah, but we outdrew PSU

 

[SolterraCyclone]

I don’t doubt the 3M number, but I’d be curious when and what the peak number is.

I think a decent percentage of that number is due to its lead in. Just cause a FCS blowout typically wouldn’t do that viewership number. For any school.

 

[FinalFourCy]

I don’t doubt the 3M number, but I’d be curious when and what the peak number is.

I think a decent percentage of that number is due to its lead in. Just cause a FCS blowout typically wouldn’t do that viewership number. For any school.

Agree. That’s a very good number for a blowout against an FCS



We should do well this weekend, although I wouldn’t have minded if Iowa snuck in the top-25 this week. A top-25 matchup with Big Noon would have been the 3rd week in a row

Getting in front of viewers early in the season and playing well can help with ratings all season

 

[StPaulCyclone]

Yeah, but we outdrew PSU

Got it. I was thinking our numbers were fantastic against those two games all OTA.

 

[cykadelic2]

That’s the same argument the P2 can make if they pool rights. Are you suggesting we start our own playoff?

So yeah, the M2 and G6 can make a choice:

1) still get 1 at-large bid to a 16-team FBS playoff that they have absolutely no chance of ever winning

OR

2) make even more money for all M6 and G6 schools by monetizing a separate 12-team M/G Playoff

Most of the increase from pooling rights comes from the P2 being one entity, if the P2 expand to 48.

The answer is Wall Street changing the model. Right now only networks can pool, as they control the revenue mechanism. We need an investor to take a risk and be the middleman, pooling rights, then bringing them to market in which the starving-for-rights networks compete for only one seller

Nice try P2 Boy. Your plan financially relegates your so called M2. Not gonna fly. And needless Wall Street intervention isn’t required when everyone plays ball.

 

[FinalFourCy]

Just more evidence that time slot and network has more to impact viewership than which teams are playing.

Also, likely showing the impact of new ratings methodology. Non-brand big state schools, schools with lower overall population but with high actual affiliation, may see a bump in ratings. That’s most of college football in the Midwest and south of schools not in major markets

“Big Data + Panel, meanwhile, supplements the newly expanded methodology for counting out-of-home television audiences, with Nielsen adding in harder-to-reach rural areas earlier this year. That also benefits sports in a disproportionate way, given the communal viewing inherent to live games, particularly major ones.

“Affinity to a team often outweighs the size of the market, and that’s where you often see the big benefit,” said Nielsen SVP Brian Fuhrer. “For markets that were not measured before [in out-of-home tabulations], they’re there now and it’s where you saw the big bumps. And teams that are popular in those markets really saw the lift. But it’s just a better view of the market overall.”

The Future of TV Ratings Is Here, and Sports Is the Big Winner

The next big wave in television audience measurement is beginning in earnest, and is poised to deliver another big jolt to sports programming.

frontofficesports.com

 

[aeroclone]

They may well do that but they would be kicking the can down the road.

If their plan is to go to 48 and financially and competitively relegate/destroy 88 existing FBS ADs and eliminate hundreds of non-rev schollies/sports, the Feds will intervene regardless and successful in doing so.

Rational SEC/B10 Presidents/ADs understand that pooling with 136 will double/triple their revenues, obviously be the politically correct thing to do and get their Anti-Trust Exemption in the process.

Yep, if there is anything you can count on for sure in today's world, it is the US government riding in to make sure the wealthy and powerful don't take advantage of the little guys.

 

[FinalFourCy]

Nice try P2 Boy. Your plan financially relegates your so called M2. Not gonna fly. And needless Wall Street intervention isn’t required when everyone plays ball.

You do realize I copied and pasted what you said about the G5?

You’re drawing lines of when “financial relegation” matters and when it doesn’t. I realize you don’t understand this.

And good luck arguing there is harm when the M2 would be making more than ever before.

Outside of a very atypical executive branch decree, which is possible, Wall St removing the power of the networks is the answer you’re looking for. Arbitrary delineation of which group should we accommodate rarely goes against the most pertinent (top 48)

 

[cykadelic2]

You do realize I copied and pasted what you said about the G5?

You’re drawing lines of when “financial relegation” matters and when it doesn’t. I realize you don’t understand this.

…..and you don’t obviously understand what financial relegation means. You are relegating 32 existing P4 schools to a lower made up M2 financial tier to accommodate your anti-ISU desire of needless Top 48 segregation both financially and competitively.

What I proposed doesn’t financially relegate the existing G6 compared to where they are now relative to existing P4. And if G6 wants to continue with only one spot in the CFP, that is up to them but they would be better off both financially and competitively for all their conference champs with having their own playoff.

 

[cykadelic2]

Yep, if there is anything you can count on for sure in today's world, it is the US government riding in to make sure the wealthy and powerful don't take advantage of the little guys.

Atta boy aero. Be part of the solution!

Saving College Sports

Saving College Sports is a 501(c)4 organization dedicated to fighting for a college sports system that protects both student athletes and the future of college athletics at every level.

www.savingcollegesports.com

 

[ClonerJams]

Ohio State president expects 'conversation will be had' on Big Ten revenue sharing

Ohio State President Ted Carter discussed the subject of changes to Big Ten revenue sharing model in an interview with USA TODAY.

www.usatoday.com

 

[2speedy1]

Ohio State president expects 'conversation will be had' on Big Ten revenue sharing

Ohio State President Ted Carter discussed the subject of changes to Big Ten revenue sharing model in an interview with USA TODAY.

www.usatoday.com

Pretty sure there are a few B10 fans on here that said this would never happen and no way the top schools in that conf would ever have even a thought like this.

Unless there is something that forces equality across all P4 then this is absolutely on the horizon.